What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today

Well, also endgame theory has advanced.

Obviously not as much as opening theory, but that's one reason e.g. Smyslov wouldn't be a good.

Guess what. We have super-talents today who work 10 hours a day on chess from age 5.

Sorry to inform you that Morphy wasn't as good as a person like this.

As far as disrespect, you seem to have quite a lot of it for modern players.

So Morphy wasn't even IM strength? You're a total jack ass. No body has disrespected anybody, except you, and you have disrespected your self by saying idiotic shit.

I didn't say what Morphys rating would be. Not that it matters, they estimated it in an unbiased way already. I sugget you don't look it up because it happens to not be GM level.

Put another way: it's nearly impossible to become an IM without studying like it's a full-time job. The very best players in the world before Capa were amateurs.

Morphy would be competing in the 2016 candidates match.

If his opponents are any measure, then Morphy would definitely be taking first place... in the U2100 section.

Morphy would finish with a plus score against 2700 players for sure. His play was accurate.

Because if I showed you many pairs of games, some played at the 2700 level, and some played at the 2300 level, you would be able to tell the difference.

Well, at least more (not all) of the greatness of those days was original and creative, as opposed to these days where more (but not all) of the rating involves  recognized patterns in games already played in the past, or by a computer. One is art, the other is maybe sport.

Just my opinion.

Clearly, the great 19th century masters would be at a disadvantage with opening theory.  But how do you think they would do on the Tactics Trainer?  I think they would be equal with the great masters of today.

Some of Morphy's "strong" opponents missed tactics I wouldn't miss in blitz.

Some of Morphy's tactics I wouldn't be able to correctly calculate in a tournament game.

Morphy was really good, but today's talents are discovered early and work on all aspects of chess. Nearly everyone in the 19th century treated chess as an idle activity mainly to pass time.

"Some of Morphy's "strong" opponents missed tactics I wouldn't miss in blitz."

Love it. See my variations:

- Some of Karpov's or Kasparov's missed tactics I wouldn't miss in blitz.

- I would outplay Korchnoi by exploring his strategic weaknesses.

- I would refute Tal's unsound sacrifices.

- I would destroy Carlsen's opening.

Such effect has a name: The Dunning–Kruger effect

However when I play through my own games after years, I can't believe my eyes: tactical blunders, dubious opening lines, unsound plans, poor endgames.

Apparently Dunning-Kruger is such an interesting idea to you that you can't wait to use it. Unfortunately it doesn't apply here.

Also, the main weakness is I'm comparing their lows with his highs. Something that I was aware of as I typed it.

#1184 asks about their tactical ability. IMO most of them were bad all around. If I had been born in 1800s I'd be NN for sure. But being who I am today I have some basis to measure some of the weaker players abilities. Morphy would beat the crap out of me, and some of his opponent's I'd consider a joke.

So Morphy was dominate and brilliant, but that doesn't mean in the year 2015 he would be dominant and brilliant. IMO this isn't a difficult concept for anyone with half a brain. Unfortunately people from far away and long ago tend to be given mystical qualities by people who don't know any better.

It was done.

Morphy was given a 2400 rating IIRC. Feel free to look it up though.

For those acting as if Morphy was at the pinnacle of chess tactics and his tactics have never been matched, you may want to google "Morphy's blunders". 

Here's just one:

Now I know, Morphy played better than this game shows. But he was no match for today's GMs. It wasn't just the opening. It wasn't just positional understanding. It wasn't just endgame knowledge. Today's elite players are also better tactically. 

This entire topic is nothing but subjective conjecture .  There is no way to really know what the ratings of past players would be , if they had ratings . 

Yes, and there are some example even in Morphy's flashy games which he won, where he didn't win as quickly or accurately as was possible.

He was not perfect. But smearing players many hundreds of rating points below you can give some people that impression.

I never claimed that Morphy played at GM level. You should read before making a total A-hole out of your self.

yeah and Kramnik never walked into a mate in one ... you're another jack ass